Question about "River of Fire" by Kalomiros

[127.0.0.1]

BLIND POST

Kalomiros says that Hell exists as a result of our human freedom, because at the core of some individuals there true self rejects God. What I see as problematic is that he also says that this core aspect that rejects God is an unchanging aspect of the individual: "This deep eternal self is eternal, with all the meaning of the word. This is why paradise and hell are also eternal. There is no changing in what we really are."

My question: If we are unable to change this "deep eternal self" Kalomiros speaks of, then how exactly are we free?

The reason why our souls cannot be changed of their persuasion is because the afterlife is outside of time. Change is an alteration of some value over time.

Consequently this is why God Himself is unchanging. In order for God to, say, change His own mind, it would require Him to be first of one persuasion and then, at a later time, of another persuasion. This does not happen to God, because God is not in time; He is the creator of it.

Time itself is linked to matter. The very fact that the after-life is, matter-free indicated that there will be no time. Time, essentially is a measurement of the motions of matter, without matter in motion, you can't have time.

So in Heave / Hell, there will be no matter, and consequently no motion. Without matter and motion there cannot be time, since time is a measurement of the motion of matter. In this way, the afterlife is eternal.

 

[Kristos]

Sure? Unfortunately the man has participated in the ecumenist movement. This alone means he should be looked at with at least a slight suspicion. He may have written good stuff, but that alone does not guarantee everything he wrote should be trusted. Only a very experienced theologian will be able to discern right and wrong. I am not one and never plan to be one - i'm just an average Joe and for my own safety I prefer avoiding his stuff, given the fact that he was an ecumenist.

Unfortunately? If you define "ecumenist" in such a way as to amount to heresy, then certainly Fr Schmemann was NOT one! But if you define it as it's actually being used to label him - as someone who lived the gospel in a real and tangible way, taking the charge to evangelize the world personally and engaging with anyone and everyone willing to listen to truth, then he absolutely was an "ecumenist". The whole idea of true "ecumenism" being at odds with Traditionalism and Conservatism is not well thought out and seems to minimize the scriptural idea of evangelism of the gospel to the world in preference to a sort of defensive isolationism, as if God actually needs us to do something that He did not ask us to do, and not do something that he did ask us to do (preach the gospel).

 

[Boris89]

in preference to a sort of defensive isolationism, as if God actually needs us to do something that He did not ask us to do, and not do something that he did ask us to do (preach the gospel).

Preserving the faith (while you still preach it, like Fr. Seraphim Rose) is one thing, isolationism is completely different. The thing is, the moment you decide to preach the faith by adding new views about it, you get a twisted pseudochristianity. We already see how some modern priests advice people to overlook Brianchaninov as being too "dark"(Andrei Kuraev) and also attempt to implement evolution in Orthodoxy. Not to mention the toll houses being "heresy". That's what the "paranoid" "isolationists" are trying to explain - if you preach it, then do it the form it was preached back in the first centuries after Christ! No compromises with the Orthodox faith under any circumstances. Nobody has ever called for isolating Orthodoxy from the world. But it doesn't happen the way some try to do it(and I'm not referring to Schmemann in particular).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Preserving the faith (while you still preach it, like Fr. Seraphim Rose) is one thing, isolationism is completely different. The thing is, the moment you decide to preach the faith by adding new views about it, you get a twisted pseudochristianity. We already see how some modern priests advice people to overlook Brianchaninov as being too "dark"(Andrei Kuraev) and also attempt to implement evolution in Orthodoxy. Not to mention the toll houses being "heresy". That's what the "paranoid" "isolationists" are trying to explain - if you preach it, then do it the form it was preached back in the first centuries after Christ! No compromises with the Orthodox faith under any circumstances. Nobody has ever called for isolating Orthodoxy from the world. But it doesn't happen the way some try to do it(and I'm not referring to Schmemann in particular).

amen!

 

[Kristos]

Preserving the faith (while you still preach it, like Fr. Seraphim Rose) is one thing, isolationism is completely different. The thing is, the moment you decide to preach the faith by adding new views about it, you get a twisted pseudochristianity. We already see how some modern priests advice people to overlook Brianchaninov as being too "dark"(Andrei Kuraev) and also attempt to implement evolution in Orthodoxy. Not to mention the toll houses being "heresy". That's what the "paranoid" "isolationists" are trying to explain - if you preach it, then do it the form it was preached back in the first centuries after Christ! No compromises with the Orthodox faith under any circumstances. Nobody has ever called for isolating Orthodoxy from the world. But it doesn't happen the way some try to do it(and I'm not referring to Schmemann in particular).

How exactly does any of this relate to your argument that Fr Schmemann (among others) was guilty of some sort of "ecumenism" and/or "modernism"? My post to which you responded addressed what seems to be a false dichotomy in your presuppositions on the subject. Now you arguing against one side of the false dichotomy as if that is my view?

I guess everyone has their favorite writer. I like the Arena. Let's just be more careful about the accusations unless you have something behind it.

 

[Protoevangel]

Unfortunately the man has participated in the ecumenist movement.

If ecumenism is understood to mean recognizing non-Orthodox churches to be formally part of the Church, then it is heresy. Do you really think Fr. Schmemann was doing this? Please show some evidence that this is the case, because slander is of the evil one.

If ecumenism is understood to mean that Orthodoxy must change Doctrine and Praxis to be more like other churches, then it is heresy. Do you really think Fr. Schmemann was doing this? Please show some evidence that this is the case, because slander is of the evil one.

If ecumenism is understood to mean joining in Sacramental prayer and/or Eucharistic con-celebration with clergy and laity of other churches, it is heresy. Do you really think Fr. Schmemann was doing this? Please show some evidence that this is the case, because slander is of the evil one.

If on the other hand, ecumenism is understood to mean dialog with heterodox churches, witnessing unwaveringly but charitably to the Truth of Orthodoxy, while cooperating in external matters (charity, relief efforts, etc) in love and compassion for God's creation... then there is nothing heretical in this... And you have been spreading false witness against Fr. Schmemann.

I am sure that you had no intent of slander or false witness. You have been tricked by the word ecumenism, and by those deeper in the darkness. You may assume it means the same thing to everyone. It does not. Yes, the ecumenical movement itself is a heresy as it's purpose is to unite the world's churches... But let's not be so intellectually disingenuous as to pretend that this is the position or purpose of Fr. Schmemann, who provided a guiding light for those in darkness to follow.

 

[InnerPhyre]

BLIND POST


The reason why our souls cannot be changed of their persuasion is because the afterlife is outside of time. Change is an alteration of some value over time.

Consequently this is why God Himself is unchanging. In order for God to, say, change His own mind, it would require Him to be first of one persuasion and then, at a later time, of another persuasion. This does not happen to God, because God is not in time; He is the creator of it.

Time itself is linked to matter. The very fact that the after-life is, matter-free indicated that there will be no time. Time, essentially is a measurement of the motions of matter, without matter in motion, you can't have time.

So in Heave / Hell, there will be no matter, and consequently no motion. Without matter and motion there cannot be time, since time is a measurement of the motion of matter. In this way, the afterlife is eternal.

Need to be careful here. There must be matter in the hereafter because the Lord is risen bodily, not spiritually. We too will be raised bodily. We will not be confined by the current limits of matter, but to deny matter in the afterlife is to deny the resurrection.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sounds like Calvinism... LOL.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Need to be careful here. There must be matter in the hereafter because the Lord is risen bodily, not spiritually. We too will be raised bodily. We will not be confined by the current limits of matter, but to deny matter in the afterlife is to deny the resurrection.

right, the world will be spiritualized and much less crude and fleshly, but still material. this is why Christ had the apostles touch the wounds and He ate in front of them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sounds like Calvinism... LOL.

haha, yeah, that's why folks said to be careful when reading that stuff. it is easy to get all crazy and weird